Add Tom Barron candidacy for Manila PTL
Change-Id: Ibb9e56428f3f4157e64adaae1ae7fceb87884c22
This commit is contained in:
parent
16b1e8f0d6
commit
a5650b5d6e
69
candidates/rocky/Manila/tbarron.txt
Normal file
69
candidates/rocky/Manila/tbarron.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
||||
Friends, Stackers, Community,
|
||||
|
||||
I write to announce my candidacy for the Manila PTL position for the
|
||||
Rocky cycle.
|
||||
|
||||
I've worked in in OpenStack since Juno and actively in Manila since
|
||||
Mitaka or so. I've had more than one employer in that time and think
|
||||
it's fair to say that I have a reputation for working upstream in the
|
||||
interests of the community. I am one of the more active Manila core
|
||||
reviewers, care about welcoming and engaging new contributors,
|
||||
encouraging participation, and at the same time preserving code quality
|
||||
and the integrity of the project.
|
||||
|
||||
Ben Swartzlander is moving on to do other cool stuff, including work
|
||||
as a Manila contributor. I expect that I share a rather general
|
||||
perception that no one can fill his shoes as PTL. That said, I do
|
||||
think that if we work together to make Manila shine we can make it
|
||||
truly awesome!
|
||||
|
||||
Some areas I'd like us to work on in the near future include:
|
||||
|
||||
* python 3 support. Upstream python 2 support is going away in 2020
|
||||
if I understand correctly and between now and then distros are
|
||||
likely to drop support for it. We need to do our part to get manila
|
||||
working with python 3 in devstack, and also with python3 when
|
||||
deployed at scale via frameworks like kolla, charms, and TripleO.
|
||||
|
||||
* performance and scale. We heard recently that Huawei public cloud is
|
||||
running manila with thousands of shares and that Cern is planning to
|
||||
move from 83 shares to over 2000 shares. Let's get more success
|
||||
stories with more back ends and build a common understanding of any
|
||||
bottlenecks and work plans to address these.
|
||||
|
||||
* side-by-side deployment with kubernetes and other clouds. Whether
|
||||
running kubernetes on OpenStack, deploying OpenStack services with
|
||||
kubernetes, or building standalone software defined storage with
|
||||
manila and cinder without other OpenStack services, this is a space
|
||||
where we need to explore and be actively engage.
|
||||
|
||||
* production quality open source software defined back ends. Manila
|
||||
has great proprietary storage back ends, but shouldn't we have open
|
||||
source back ends that work reliably at scale as well? We could make
|
||||
the generic driver great in this regard, or build out distributed
|
||||
file system back ends like cephfs with good data path HA and tenant
|
||||
separation. There are perhaps other alternatives that haven't
|
||||
surfaced yet. There's a lot of room here for innovation and
|
||||
certainly demand from cloud operators on this front.
|
||||
|
||||
* vendor participation: we have a mix of vendors introducing new
|
||||
back ends, sustained participation from vendors with existing
|
||||
back ends, and some back ends that no longer have attention from
|
||||
their vendors even though -- working with a distro -- I see customers
|
||||
indicating that they *want* to use those back ends if only the
|
||||
vendors were engaged! Let's welcome new vendors with open arms
|
||||
and help all understand the mutual benefit of remaining involved
|
||||
with manila as the community evolves and grows.
|
||||
|
||||
Those are some of my ideas. I offer them as much as anything to
|
||||
stimulate others working on manila to come to PTG and the Rocky cycle
|
||||
with their own initiatives.
|
||||
|
||||
Also, if you haven't been working in manila and any of the above seems
|
||||
interesting (or just nuts) come on over! Manila is a great place to
|
||||
contribute and innovate!
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for listening.
|
||||
|
||||
-- Tom Barron (tbarron)
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user